Please Read Disclaimer.

THE CONTENTS OF THIS BLOG DO NOT MAKE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP.

The information provided on this site is informational, only. No legal advice is given and no attorney/client or other relationship is established or intended.
We are independent of cross links and do not warrant their accuracy or applicability.
We are located in Florida and comply with all ethical rules of the Florida Bar. Some States may require the word, "Advertisement," or similar words to appear.
No professional relationship will be deemed to exist unless and until an agreement in writing for professional services has been signed by both client and Mr. Wall after appropriate interviews and conflict checks.

Google Search This Site

Become a Fan

April 10, 2017

ADVISING ABOUT YOUR PREVIOUS "PRIVILEGED" ADVICE?

The person who is now in charge of counseling the current Secretary of the Treasury on what to do about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two conduits both of Federal government mortgage guarantees and of Federal government revenue from their continuing operations, has previous experience it seems. When he previously made his money in the financial sector, the same individual was in charge of a unit at a "huge asset manager." The current counselor's former employer, the huge asset manager, advised the Federal government on the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac sued the Federal government because the Federal government diverted Fannie's and Freddie's revenues to the Federal Treasury and away from the shareholders.

In their lawsuit, the shareholders requested many documents showing the analysis the advisers gave to the Federal government about whether and how Fannie and Freddie are profitable now and in the future. These are of course exactly the issues on which the Treasury counselor, well, now counsels the Treasury.

The Federal government understandably has refused to let those analyses see the light of day, or for that matter, let the shareholders see them.

Many questions come to mind now. Among them: Does it make any difference to that discovery dispute that the supervising consultant of "Fannie and Freddie's loss and capital projections" is now a counselor to Treasury on Fannie and Freddie's loss and capital projections?

Does it add anything that the current counselor helped to bundle mortgage loans for Fannie and Freddie to buy, which went south very badly. In fact, they performed so badly that the allegedly bad mortgage loans were one of the reasons that the Fannie and Freddie's Federal overseer, the Federal Housing Finance Administration, sued and settled for $1.25 billion?